Skip to main content

Comment assassination: the relevance of Libertarians (with "Libertarian" vaguely defined)

I run into this about once per year, with self-appointed "purist" Libertarians, and it bears repeating here, with updates.

Recently I wrote a post critical of the Delaware General Assembly for wasting tens of millions in corporate welfare while blanching at the cost of transporting homeless children to school.

This was the response from one JDL:
I kept looking for Mr. Newton to clarify with something like "As a libertarian, I of course oppose any government involvement in any of these activities, including busing children to school." But I looked in vain (or did I miss it somewhere?). 
Conclusion: Steve Newton, you're no libertarian. You're just another socialist, but with different priorities from some other socialists. 
As a libertarian, I oppose government involvement in such mis-labeling. But I have to ask: Mr. Newton, have you no shame?
Shorter JDL:  I am the keeper of the faith and the decider of all things Libertarian.

There is, and long has been, a split in the Libertarian Party between "purists" and "pragmatists," and--truth in advertising--I have always identified myself as a pragmatic Libertarian.

I want to expand freedom one step at a time, taking what I can get in increments, and stopping those who would stamp it out, one step at a time.

This requires actual political engagement.  It requires becoming aware of the issues.  And it involves a recognition that every self-proclaimed Libertarian needs to have tolerance for other Libertarians who think differently.

That said, I think the pragmatists are gaining, because the rest of the country seems to be listening more closely than usual.


Take the post by the guy who wonders if he is the only Libertarian Democrat in America:

On the other hand, I could be a rare cross between Libertarian and Democrat because I'm convinced that self government flourishes when fewer laws restrict personal choices, from the right to ingest any inebriating substance, to a woman's right to an abortion, and the rights of gay people to marry. Logically, private citizens must become politically active to achieve these freedoms and it won't happen by talking about it over a beer at the local hang out. 
As I think about it a little more, I'm probably a Libertarian Democrat because I oppose any governmental body that interferes with my life in any way. I am particularly offended when my property rights are challenged under the guise of protecting them, from nosey neighborhood associations to any agency of the State or federal government.
I must be a Libertarian Democrat because I oppose oppressive police, elective wars and puppet dictators.
 
I must be a Libertarian Democrat because I oppose mandatory seat belts, Interstate Highway speed limits in rural areas, speed traps, and their hidden cameras.
I must be a Libertarian Democrat because I welcome everyone to America who is willing to work and does not want to bomb the hell out of our cities or turn America into the same type of failed theocracy they fled.
 
I must be a Libertarian Democrat because I believe in legalized industrial hemp, legalized gambling. legalized drugs, and legalized prostitution. I say, let's tax all of it enough to eliminate payroll withholdings. 
I must be a Libertarian Democrat because I demand the right to ignore your religion or even make fun of it while I demand your right to worship as you please.
When I look into my philosophical grab bag, I'm not sure if I see a Libertarian Democrat or just a typical red-blooded American.
Or consider the writer who (like former LPD Convention keynote speaker Dr. Michael Munger and former LPD VP Candidate Judge Jim Gray) actually talks about a libertarian case for government involvement in health care. 

Or even the columnist who warns the GOP (for about the 10,000th time they've been warned) that rejecting the Libertarians in its ranks won't work as a longterm strategy, and who implicitly reminds the rest of us why conservatives are not only not Libertarians, but not really very good allies for Libertarians.

Standing in the way of a relevant political party actually doing something to roll back the State and function as actual American citizens, are idiots like JDL who cannot accept any argument more nuanced than "Anybody who doesn't agree with me is a socialist."

That's OK--he's probably such a "pure" Libertarian that he doesn't even vote.

And with profound apologies to many of my true friends who happen to be "purists" and put up with me by not judging me:  thanks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...